Phantom time hypothesis

The phantom time hypothesis is a theory advanced by German historian and publisher Heribert Illig (born 1947) which proposes that roughly 300 years of "phantom time" were inserted into the Western calendar in the Early Middle Ages, from AD 614 to 911. According to the hypothesis, events dated to this period in Europe and neighboring regions either occurred in a different period, or did not occur at all. Some opponents have labeled it a conspiracy theory.[1] It is one of several reconstructions of AD chronology, all of which propose removing several centuries. Illig's is the most conservative.

Contents

Explanation

The hypothesis suggests that the Holy Roman EmperorOtto III and Pope Sylvester II retrospectively inserted 300 years into the Western calendar, so that it placed them at the special year of AD 1000, and rewrote history, inventing the heroic figure of Charlemagne among other things.[2] By this means Otto III created a phantom dynasty to legitimize his imperial pretensions[3].

Illig believed that this was achieved through the alteration, misrepresentation, and forgery of documentary and physical evidence.[4]

Illig further suggests that the number 300 was not simply made up to suit Otto's needs, but rather that he appealed to the Philippian Era Calendar, which has its year zero close to the death of Alexander the Great and which was still in use in Constantinople where Otto III's mother, Theophanou, originated from. This provided some legitimacy for Otto III's claim that his reign commenced at the start of a new millenium[5].

Arguments for

The scarcity of archaeological evidence that can be reliably dated to the period AD 614–911, the perceived inadequacies of radiometric and dendrochronological methods of dating this period, and the over-reliance of medieval historians on written sources.

The "Roman Gap", of approximately 700 years, in the dendrochonological records for European artifacts.[8]

The inability to reliably determine the provenance, chain of custody, and publication date of any document older than about 500 years.

The presence of Romanesque architecture in tenth-century Western Europe, suggesting the Roman era was not as long as conventionally thought.

The lack of any plagues in Europe for 700 years.

The relation between the Julian calendar, Gregorian calendar and the underlying astronomical solar or tropical year. The Julian calendar, introduced by Julius Caesar, was long known to introduce a discrepancy from the tropical year of around one day for each century that the calendar was in use. By the time the Gregorian calendar was introduced in AD 1582, Illig alleges that the old Julian calendar should have produced a discrepancy of thirteen days between it and the real (or tropical) calendar. Instead, the astronomers and mathematicians working for Pope Gregory had found that the civil calendar needed to be adjusted by only ten days. (The Julian calendar day Thursday, 4 October 1582 was followed by the first day of the Gregorian calendar, Friday, 15 October 1582). From this, Illig concludes that the AD era had counted roughly three centuries which never existed, however, see Fomenko.

The extensive stratigraphic analyses of Gunnar Heinsohn, who claims that 700 "phantom years" are added into the AD calendar, such that 230 AD and 930 AD are the same year.

The astronomical, statistical and historical analyses of Anatoly Fomenko and colleagues.

Arguments against

Observations in ancient astronomy, including during the Tang Dynasty in China, of solar eclipses and Halley's Comet for example, are consistent with current astronomy with no "phantom time" added.[9][10] However, it must be pointed out that evidence from the Tang dynasty simply means that the traditional Chinese calendar does not contain any insertions unless events during the Tang Dynasty can be accurately correlated with events in the Western calendar that they are said to match.

The Gregorian reform was never purported to bring the calendar in line with the Julian calendar as it had existed at the time of its institution in 45 BC, but as it had existed in 325, the time of the Council of Nicaea, which had established a method for determining the date of Easter Sunday by fixing the Vernal Equinox on March 21 in the Julian calendar. By 1582, the astronomical equinox was occurring on March 10 in the Julian calendar, but Easter was still being calculated from a nominal equinox on March 21. In 45 BC the astronomical vernal equinox took place around March 23. Illig's "three missing centuries" thus correspond to the 369 years between the institution of the Julian calendar in 45 BC, and the fixing of the Easter Date at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325.[12]